In United Construction Products, Inc., v. Tile Tech, Inc., [2016-1392] (December 15, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed default judgment against Tile Tech on claims of\u00a0patent infringement and unfair competition because of its counsel near complete failure to provide discovery.<\/p>\n
After cataloging Tile Tech numerous discovery failures, and considering the Malone factors:<\/p>\n
the Federal Circuit\u00a0found that entry of default was not an abuse of discretion. \u00a0Tile Tech tried to undo the default by arguing that its conduct was not willful or in bad faith, noting that the district court found that \u201cwhile
\ndefense counsel perhaps handled the case unreasonably,\u00a0this [c]ourt does not attribute that to bad faith, but instead\u00a0a complete lack of preparation.\u201d \u00a0However, the Federal Circuit said that willfulness and bad faith were not the only justifications for entering default, which also include “fault.”\u00a0While Tile Tech has argued\u00a0that its trial attorney had \u201cunfamiliarity\u201d with\u00a0federal court practice, it has not offered any evidence to\u00a0suggest that its dilatory actions were outside of its attorney\u2019s\u00a0control.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In United Construction Products, Inc., v. Tile Tech, Inc., [2016-1392] (December 15, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed default judgment against Tile Tech on claims of\u00a0patent infringement and unfair competition because of its counsel near complete failure to provide discovery. After … Continue reading